[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is a Letter to the Editor, written and submitted by a verified resident. It represents the opinion of the author, and does not necessarily reflect the views of South King Media or its staff.]
What is the purpose of a 26 ft high ADU (aka “mother in law”) with 1000 sq ft of living space on the first floor, and another 1000 sq ft of storage space right above it on the second floor? No staircase to the second floor, just a hatch? A windowless second floor with a full-blown dormer?
That is just what I asked myself when a neighbor built exactly that ADU in a recently bought lot. The biggest house in our long block by overall size, yet the smallest one in terms of livable space. A massive and odd mix between a house and a warehouse towering over the original house in the lot and the backyards around it. Something didn’t make sense.
Two years ago King County approved the 2024 Comprehensive Plan which, among other things, has the goal to promote building to alleviate the housing affordability experienced in our county. The new building ordinance approved by the City of Burien in 2025 (Ordinance No. 868) is a follow-up to this plan, a document that helps define how our city will grow, including the criteria and limitations of the ADUs built here.
My first reaction to the newly built ADU, as most of the neighbors around it, was “this can’t be legal”. So several of us contacted different staff and council members in the city, who were very helpful and took the time to listen and explain everything in detail. To my surprise, their reply was consistent and along these lines: It is legal, since it doesn’t go over the 1000 sq ft of occupied (living) space, and it doesn’t go over the 35 ft height limit for our R-2 zone.
This is a loophole that needs to be corrected. Every regulation that is approved by a government entity has a purpose. One of the main purposes of the King County 2024 Comprehensive Plan and the Burien Ordinance No. 868 is to alleviate housing affordability in our area. Following up on King County, the planners at the City of Burien have taken steps to promote the construction of new ADUs, but in their eagerness to build they have shown poor foresight and expertise, overlooking an important factor when putting into writing the Ordinance: Height.
As aforementioned, right now the height limit for any residential building in our zone, both single-family and multi-family buildings, is 35 ft high. Just to put this in perspective, 35 ft is the usual height of a 3 story building. Based on this, our neighbors could have built another 3rd floor with additional 1000 sq ft of storage on their new ADU, and as long as it didn’t surpass 35 ft of height, it would have been legal. This is a single-family unit that has two bedrooms, so it will probably accommodate a couple without children, or a family of 4 at the most; 3 stories for that. The purpose of Ordinance No. 868 would have been accomplished exactly the same if the height had been of just one floor capped at, for example, 18 ft high. By doing a quick search, I found out that Burien has the most generous height limit for any ADU in the cities around us that I checked: Bellevue, 15 ft; Renton, 18 ft (exceptional cases up to 24 ft); Normandy Park, 25 ft; Seattle, 32 ft. Since the limit for occupied space in an ADU is 1000 sq ft, Burien single-family ADU height limit of 35 ft brings no improvement to the purpose of alleviating our housing affordability, the real need here, and has clear negative outcomes: visual impacts, overuse of much needed forest resources, and attracting developers with obscure reasons to build one floor (or two) with one thousand (or two thousand) sq ft of storage above the living space: What will happen in the upper floors of this type of ADUs once the final permits are granted?
Burien is going to grow. Do we want to grow wisely, or uglily, squanderily, and sketchily? Our city ordinances are the key.
– Fabiån Caño
Do you have an opinion you’d like to share with our highly engaged local Readers? If so, please email your Letter to the Editor to scott@southkingmedia.com and, pending review and verification that you’re a real human being, we may publish it. Letter writers must use their full name, as well as provide an address and phone number (NOT for publication but for verification purposes).
Could be worse. You could live in the new zoning where they are building multiple two story townhouses in small single story home lots or even worse where I live the city zoned it for 80 feet in a neighborhood of single story homes. I live in fear everyday someone will sell to a developer.
Welcome to the inevitable collateral damage from and activist planning staff and uniformed council who were intentionally mislead by the planning department on the process. People dont mind smart well designed density – this is not that. What Burien city staff have done is hit the entire city with an up zone hammer thinking it will make housing cheaper and solve the drug addicted, mentally ill homeless crisis. Wrong on all fronts. Burien far exceeded what was required by state and without changes to the council the city will see more of this awful construction. Gird your loins…. it is going to get far worse before people have had enough of this nonsense.
No one would argue that we already have enough housing. Creating additional living space within existing neighborhoods and existing infrastructure is one of the lowest-impact ways to accommodate growth without endless sprawl.
You may not personally like the look of this ADU, but if it complies with the current code, then the issue is really with the ordinance itself, not the homeowner who followed the rules. Burien, like the rest of the region, desperately needs more reasonably priced housing options, and ADUs are part of that solution.
Not every new structure is going to match everyone’s personal taste. Growth is coming whether we like it or not, and using existing lots efficiently is far better than pushing development farther into forests and rural land.
The deeper problem is not that one neighbor followed the rules, but that the rules themselves were poorly drafted. Ordinance No. 868 focus’ narrowly on occupied square footage while ignoring massing, proportionality, and neighborhood compatibility. Any competent zoning framework should anticipate how developers and property owners will exploit loopholes. That is one of the basic responsibilities of city planning. When regulations allow a structure to functionally resemble a warehouse more than a cottage home, the ordinance has failed to align outcomes with intent.
Burien’s City Council also deserves scrutiny for approving such broad dimensional allowances without stronger safeguards. A 35-foot height limit for detached ADUs in single-family zones is extraordinarily permissive given the 1,000-square-foot cap on habitable space. The result is predictable: oversized accessory buildings with massive non-livable upper levels that dominate neighboring yards while contributing little additional housing capacity.
Even more concerning is the lack of practical limits on how these “storage” floors may ultimately be used. Once a large enclosed upper story exists, with dormers, volume, and infrastructure already in place, it becomes difficult for enforcement agencies to monitor future conversions or misuse. The city effectively created a system where the code encourages construction that pushes right up against the boundary of what was intended, while placing the burden of concern and oversight onto neighbors after the fact.
There is also a broader planning issue here. Good urban growth requires balance: more housing, yes, but also thoughtful design standards that preserve sunlight, privacy, scale, and environmental quality. Burien’s approach risks alienating residents who might otherwise support ADUs and gentle density. When people see towering, bulky structures that appear intentionally engineered around loopholes, public trust in housing reform erodes. Poorly written zoning can damage support for exactly the kind of smart growth policies cities need.
The comparison with neighboring jurisdictions makes the problem harder to defend. Cities like Bellevue, Renton, Normandy Park, and Seattle all impose stricter ADU height standards despite facing the same regional housing pressures. That suggests Burien is not simply “following state mandates,” but choosing an unusually lax interpretation with foreseeable consequences.
Ultimately, the issue is not opposition to growth. The issue is whether growth is being guided intelligently. A city that claims to prioritize affordability and livability should not be encouraging oversized pseudo-residential structures that consume resources, alter neighborhood character, and create suspicion about future use, all while producing only a modest amount of actual housing. Burien residents have every right to demand zoning regulations that are clear, enforceable, proportional, and genuinely tied to the public interest rather than riddled with loopholes.
Fabian – I was out to lunch with a couple neighbors when I was alerted to your post. I believe you live on the street to the east of me kitty corner to the ADU. Are you behind John and Erin or behind Marshall and Laura? By this post you should be able to determine which house I live in. Please contact me. Maybe together we can figure out something we can do.
ADU or not, the height restriction is 35’ and not just with that ordinance. It’s been that way for a long time. You could have a huge incongruous 35’ high primary residence sitting there next to you. We recently sold a property for just that reason. Welcome to the party.